Is Religion Killing Good Sci-Fi Shows? [minimal politics]

[Greylock Crescent]

The thing is, I believe there was much more of an explanation of the mysticism elements of BSG than of the science-fictional elements. Much of the science was treated as fantasy in the sense that characters waved their hands (pushed buttons) and the stuff worked. They could have called FTL "magic carpet propulsion" and there wouldn't be any change to what we see on screen. BSG used sci-fi terms, but rarely, if ever discussed them realistically. I don't know if that's enough to disqualify BSG as sci-fi, but nonetheless that's the approach the series took.

 

[sidious618]

The thing is, I believe there was much more of an explanation of the mysticism elements of BSG than of the science-fictional elements. Much of the science was treated as fantasy in the sense that characters waved their hands (pushed buttons) and the stuff worked. They could have called FTL "magic carpet propulsion" and there wouldn't be any change to what we see on screen. BSG used sci-fi terms, but rarely, if ever discussed them realistically. I don't know if that's enough to disqualify BSG as sci-fi, but nonetheless that's the approach the series took.

Probably why I loved it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The thing is, I believe there was much more of an explanation of the mysticism elements of BSG than of the science-fictional elements. Much of the science was treated as fantasy in the sense that characters waved their hands (pushed buttons) and the stuff worked. They could have called FTL "magic carpet propulsion" and there wouldn't be any change to what we see on screen. BSG used sci-fi terms, but rarely, if ever discussed them realistically. I don't know if that's enough to disqualify BSG as sci-fi, but nonetheless that's the approach the series took.

As I said in a prior post, isn't that how Star Trek (TOS) worked?

I didn't say I wanted explanations of how something worked, just some kind of background. I disagree with you that there was any background of substance beyond the odd flashback.

What exactly constitutes "some background"? How much equals "substance"?

 

[Deckerd]

Historical references, cultural references other than mythology. The arts were almost completely lacking in the BSG world, aside from a few books with their corners cut off. Leisure activities fared even worse aside from a simplistic ball game, one dance and one boxing match and getting drunk. No television, no movies, one song (this in a military setting!), no plays, no gigs, no cultural memory. No mention of cars, clothes, shoes, interplanetary competitions, internet or computer activities of any sort. The sort of thing humans talk about every day. If you don't think people in war zones talk about things like that then you're mistaken. They talk about anything and everything to take their mind off what's happening.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The thing is, I believe there was much more of an explanation of the mysticism elements of BSG than of the science-fictional elements. Much of the science was treated as fantasy in the sense that characters waved their hands (pushed buttons) and the stuff worked. They could have called FTL "magic carpet propulsion" and there wouldn't be any change to what we see on screen. BSG used sci-fi terms, but rarely, if ever discussed them realistically. I don't know if that's enough to disqualify BSG as sci-fi, but nonetheless that's the approach the series took.

As I said in a prior post, isn't that how Star Trek (TOS) worked?

You seriously comparing nuBSG to Trek TOS? Trek was hardly perfect, but it was far more steeped in science than nuBSG. You'd have more luck comparing nuBSG to nuTrek in terms of how each treated the "science" elements of their fiction.

 

[stonester1]

It depends on your approach. Again, what is your focus? It isn't just toys, technobabble and ties to known science that makes science fiction. If you are actually attempting to tell tales about realistic people in a fantastic setting, real people don't have lots of expository dialogue about how the machines they use work.

They just use them.

Kinda like the people on BSG.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

So a science fiction story dealing with an alien religion or belief system is merely engaged in sociological speculation and worldbuilding, exploring what it is the alien society believes and how that belief affects their behavior and their lives.

In the VOY episode Emanations #108 it dealt with alien religious beliefs

science consultant André Bormanis enjoyed was the inclusion of the planet's ring system. He explained, "Ring systems are typically comprised of relatively small to fairly large, rocky pieces of debris. Ice sometimes is associated with this debris [....] In our show 'Emanations,' we decided that the rings of an alien gas giant planet would be a fun setting for this story, which was ultimately a story about religious beliefs and the afterlife.

in a useful way without being too preachy.

 

[stonester1]

Any desire to retreat to science fiction as some kind of "religion free" zone is seeking to put some kind of artificial barrier, some kind of sanction on the storytelling that is simply unnecessary and does not at all reflect on the human experience.

What I want to know is why some science fiction fans feel the need to recoil at the idea that some DO take seriously the idea of diety/spirit/what have you.

I think it should be pointed out that writing about religion is not the same thing as writing about divinity. Religion is a human institution revolving around the belief in divine entities or forces that shape our lives. It's certainly possible to write about a religion, i.e. a cultural institution, without postulating the reality of the things it believes in. So a science fiction story dealing with an alien religion or belief system is merely engaged in sociological speculation and worldbuilding, exploring what it is the alien society believes and how that belief affects their behavior and their lives. There's certainly no need to manifest those beliefs as concrete realities.

Alternatively, one can depict an alien religion built around something that has a secular, scientific explanation, as was done in Stargate and DS9 (though DS9 was a little more ambivalent about it toward the end). Again, just because the story depicts characters believing in something, that doesn't mean it's treated as objectively real (at least in the sense they believe) within the story.

Conversely, it's possible to write about supernatural forces without writing about religion -- because, again, "religion" means the cultural or individual practice of belief and devotion in those forces, rather than referring to the forces themselves. For instance, the recent Avengers short films that aired online as prologues to the new animated series included a couple of segments revolving around Thor and the Norse gods defending Asgard from Loki and the Frost Giants. It was a story about divinities, but it wasn't about religion, because nobody in the story was shown worshipping the Norse gods or practicing rituals in their honor.

All true. However, it seems whenever one of these threads shows up, there seems to be a large contingent in science fiction fandom (or at least Star Trek fandom) who don't want religion/spirituality/divinity in their science fiction at all. If it must be, it must be one of three stripes...

1. Quaint, old, irrelevant beliefs most don't take seriously anymore.

2. A grand deception that ony fools buy into.

3. Aliens (often tied into number two).

The idea that smart, sane, competent characters might believe in something transcendant bothers many of them. It bothers them even more that something those characters believe in might not even be entirely untrue, either.

In reality, spirituality hasn't been banished, no reason it must be in a science fiction setting, either.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Historical references, cultural references other than mythology. The arts were almost completely lacking in the BSG world, aside from a few books with their corners cut off. Leisure activities fared even worse aside from a simplistic ball game, one dance and one boxing match and getting drunk. No television, no movies, one song (this in a military setting!), no plays, no gigs, no cultural memory. No mention of cars, clothes, shoes, interplanetary competitions, internet or computer activities of any sort. The sort of thing humans talk about every day. If you don't think people in war zones talk about things like that then you're mistaken. They talk about anything and everything to take their mind off what's happening.

Inclusion of these things, as interesting as they might have been, would not have moved BSG any deeper into the realm of science fiction, though, IMO.....

 

[Nerys Myk]

Historical references, cultural references other than mythology. The arts were almost completely lacking in the BSG world, aside from a few books with their corners cut off. Leisure activities fared even worse aside from a simplistic ball game, one dance and one boxing match and getting drunk. No television, no movies, one song (this in a military setting!), no plays, no gigs, no cultural memory. No mention of cars, clothes, shoes, interplanetary competitions, internet or computer activities of any sort. The sort of thing humans talk about every day. If you don't think people in war zones talk about things like that then you're mistaken. They talk about anything and everything to take their mind off what's happening.

Well, as I said I wasnt really a fan. So I cant comment on how much there was. But even the existance of one game or song shows that they had some sort of "culture". Even the religious/societal difference between the colonies speaks to their culture. That the writers chose to down play these elements is a creative choice.

The thing is, I believe there was much more of an explanation of the mysticism elements of BSG than of the science-fictional elements. Much of the science was treated as fantasy in the sense that characters waved their hands (pushed buttons) and the stuff worked. They could have called FTL "magic carpet propulsion" and there wouldn't be any change to what we see on screen. BSG used sci-fi terms, but rarely, if ever discussed them realistically. I don't know if that's enough to disqualify BSG as sci-fi, but nonetheless that's the approach the series took.

As I said in a prior post, isn't that how Star Trek (TOS) worked?

You seriously comparing nuBSG to Trek TOS? Trek was hardly perfect, but it was far more steeped in science than nuBSG. You'd have more luck comparing nuBSG to nuTrek in terms of how each treated the "science" elements of their fiction.

I'm talking about TOS approach to their "futuristic tech". Things like warp drive, phasers and transporters. We didnt get much detail on how they worked. The characters pushed the button and it worked. Whenthey didnt work we got a little bit of jargon and hand waving, but that was about it. As I said, Rodenberry at that time saw no need to bog down the storytelling with the hows and whys of the tech used on the show. I believe "science" was treated in a similar fashion. Just enough to inform the plot, but it wasn't like sitting through a Universty lecture.

 

[sidious618]

You seriously comparing nuBSG to Trek TOS? Trek was hardly perfect, but it was far more steeped in science than nuBSG. You'd have more luck comparing nuBSG to nuTrek in terms of how each treated the "science" elements of their fiction.

Just because TOS made up some bullshit words and threw them in at random times does not make it more "science" fiction.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

You seriously comparing nuBSG to Trek TOS? Trek was hardly perfect, but it was far more steeped in science than nuBSG. You'd have more luck comparing nuBSG to nuTrek in terms of how each treated the "science" elements of their fiction.

Just because TOS made up some bullshit words and threw them in at random times does not make it more "science" fiction.

&

I'm talking about TOS approach to their "futuristic tech". Things like warp drive, phasers and transporters. We didnt get much detail on how they worked. The characters pushed the button and it worked. Whenthey didnt work we got a little bit of jargon and hand waving, but that was about it. As I said, Rodenberry at that time saw no need to bog down the storytelling with the hows and whys of the tech used on the show. I believe "science" was treated in a similar fashion. Just enough to inform the plot, but it wasn't like sitting through a Universty lecture.

Trek TOS certainly isn't the "gold standard" of explaining the science in science fiction, but comparatively speaking, there's no question that it made a much more concerted effort explain its science than nuBSG. Ultimately, nuBSG was more like nuTrek -- neither of seemed interested at all in explaining or even rationalizing the tech. In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story -- again, relative to nuBSG.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I actually did not mind the way the new BSG came to an end, in that some things were not completely explained with a neat, "scientific" explanation. I liked the open-ended-ness of "so what was Starbuck?" (etc.), although I was expecting a more "structured" explanation.

On the other hand, I really did not care for the Lost finale. It didn't seem to explain anything, IMO. I think the ones in charge decided to just show two hours of a series of happy and somewhat gooey character moments as, one-by-one, all the characters all gradually got back together. i didn't mind the afterlife angle-- just would have liked to have had more pieces falling in place about the nature of the island, the light, etc.,

It seems to me that while Galactica left open quite a big central question (or perhaps steered some viewers into a realm of explanation that they'd prefer to not enter), Lost left open dozens of small to moderately large intriguing questions.

 

[sidious618]

Trek TOS certainly isn't the "gold standard" of explaining the science in science fiction, but comparatively speaking, there's no question that it made a much more concerted effort explain its science than nuBSG. Ultimately, nuBSG was more like nuTrek -- neither of seemed interested at all in explaining or even rationalizing the tech. In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story -- again, relative to nuBSG.

I really don't see how it was. Not in TOS, at least. Then again I've no interest in tech talk whatsoever and find it to be a crutch as opposed to solid writing so it's possible I just forgot about a lot of those TOS scenes.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Trek TOS certainly isn't the "gold standard" of explaining the science in science fiction, but comparatively speaking, there's no question that it made a much more concerted effort explain its science than nuBSG. Ultimately, nuBSG was more like nuTrek -- neither of seemed interested at all in explaining or even rationalizing the tech. In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story -- again, relative to nuBSG.

I really don't see how it was. Not in TOS, at least. Then again I've no interest in tech talk whatsoever and find it to be a crutch as opposed to solid writing so it's possible I just forgot about a lot of those TOS scenes.

I'm not trying to pass judgment either way -- and I, too, tend to tune out when there's too much technobabble. But from premise to execution, I don't think there's any question that Trek TOS made a more concerted effort to address the science in the series than nuBSG. Again, I'm just speaking in relative terms and am not saying one approach is inherently better than the other. But it's worth pointing out that nuBSG seemed far more interested in exploring its mysticism than its science -- a very different approach than TOS, which was more concerned about the science than mysticism.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

I'm talking about TOS approach to their "futuristic tech". Things like warp drive, phasers and transporters. We didnt get much detail on how they worked. The characters pushed the button and it worked. Whenthey didnt work we got a little bit of jargon and hand waving, but that was about it. As I said, Rodenberry at that time saw no need to bog down the storytelling with the hows and whys of the tech used on the show. I believe "science" was treated in a similar fashion. Just enough to inform the plot, but it wasn't like sitting through a Universty lecture.

Trek TOS certainly isn't the "gold standard" of explaining the science in science fiction,

In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story [/QUOTE]
Roddenberry created a universe that just used this technology to further the story.
I think with episodes of TNG,VOY, & ENT the tech became the story ala an episode based around a transporter accident and you have episodes with moral and religious issues like VOY's Tuvix Ep#224.

 

[Deckerd]

Ultimately, nuBSG was more like nuTrek -- neither of seemed interested at all in explaining or even rationalizing the tech. In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story -- again, relative to nuBSG.

Except that you can't compare one movie with a 4 season plus pilot plus various extras television series.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's about free will, rationality, cause & effect vs. faith, irrationality, prophecies, effect without cause. That's science vs. fantasy essentially.

And a story about religion is not the same as a religious story. Star Trek had many stories about religion. nuBSG, Lost, etc... are religious stories.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You seriously comparing nuBSG to Trek TOS? Trek was hardly perfect, but it was far more steeped in science than nuBSG. You'd have more luck comparing nuBSG to nuTrek in terms of how each treated the "science" elements of their fiction.

Just because TOS made up some bullshit words and threw them in at random times does not make it more "science" fiction.

&

I'm talking about TOS approach to their "futuristic tech". Things like warp drive, phasers and transporters. We didnt get much detail on how they worked. The characters pushed the button and it worked. Whenthey didnt work we got a little bit of jargon and hand waving, but that was about it. As I said, Rodenberry at that time saw no need to bog down the storytelling with the hows and whys of the tech used on the show. I believe "science" was treated in a similar fashion. Just enough to inform the plot, but it wasn't like sitting through a Universty lecture.

Trek TOS certainly isn't the "gold standard" of explaining the science in science fiction, but comparatively speaking, there's no question that it made a much more concerted effort explain its science than nuBSG. Ultimately, nuBSG was more like nuTrek -- neither of seemed interested at all in explaining or even rationalizing the tech. In both (nuBSG & nuTrek) it was simply a plot device only. TOS the tech was more integral to the story -- again, relative to nuBSG.

Most rationalization and explanation of TOS tech has come from the fans and not from the show its self. We tend to conflate what the show told us with what we've read about in "tech manuals", behind the scenes books, novels and general conversation. As I said the show treated tech as matter of fact. No different than the microwave in your kitchen or the TV in your living room. You operated them, but never think about explaining them.

NuTrek used then same "tech" as TOS: phasers, transporters and warp drives. It might have dropped the ball in the real science department, but its fake science was pure TOS. ( and presented with about the same amount of explaination). It used a few real science ideas like The Many Worlds Theory and blackhole/wormholes as "time machines." Might have warped them for dramatic/plot reasons but that's par for the course in Trek.

TOS tech served basic purposes: Phasers were weapons, Warp drive was for long distance travel and transporters were for short distance. That's as "intergral" as they got. They were plot devices, plain and simple. (especially when they broke down).

IMO,BSG wasnt about the tech. ( ironic I guess when the bad guys are artificial life forms). The tech was just there to frame the story. The nuts and bolts of the FTL or even the cylons really didn't matter. That might frustrate the tech-head type fans, but it is a valid approach

 

[Greylock Crescent]

TOS tech served basic purposes: Phasers were weapons, Warp drive was for long distance travel and transporters were for short distance. That's as "intergral" as they got. They were plot devices, plain and simple. (especially when they broke down).

IMO,BSG wasnt about the tech. ( ironic I guess when the bad guys are artificial life forms). The tech was just there to frame the story. The nuts and bolts of the FTL or even the cylons really didn't matter. That might frustrate the tech-head type fans, but it is a valid approach

That was my point, actually -- that TOS was often about the tech and in nuBSG, particularly as the series progressed, the tech was almost always (though not entirely) inconsequential to the story. Which is why I thought it odd to compare the two in the first place.